There has been a lot of stuff recently about reaching +1.5degrees next year, including a feature article in last week’s New Scientist headed:

Welcome to Life After 1.5c

There then follow four paragraphs on how all-hell will break loose, and how the world is breaching commitments made in a “binding treaty”.

Then it says, OK, the average temperature increase won’t exceed 1.5c next year, but it’s not far away, by the mid 2030’s, says someone.

It seems to me that this sort of stuff is anti-productive, and just gives fodder to the climate change action denialists, of whom there are still plenty around.

What is the best way to present scientific data to maximise action on reducing GHG emissions?

The Rev Dodgson said:

There has been a lot of stuff recently about reaching +1.5degrees next year, including a feature article in last week’s New Scientist headed:

Welcome to Life After 1.5c

There then follow four paragraphs on how all-hell will break loose, and how the world is breaching commitments made in a “binding treaty”.

Then it says, OK, the average temperature increase won’t exceed 1.5c next year, but it’s not far away, by the mid 2030’s, says someone.

It seems to me that this sort of stuff is anti-productive, and just gives fodder to the climate change action denialists, of whom there are still plenty around.

What is the best way to present scientific data to maximise action on reducing GHG emissions?

I mean really, this problem applies to all journalism. Individuals and society in general would be better served by having news media that just provided information, but in reality the companies are gasping for profit and so they need sensationalist headlines and imbalanced focus. I don’t know what the solution is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

There has been a lot of stuff recently about reaching +1.5degrees next year, including a feature article in last week’s New Scientist headed:

Welcome to Life After 1.5c

There then follow four paragraphs on how all-hell will break loose, and how the world is breaching commitments made in a “binding treaty”.

Then it says, OK, the average temperature increase won’t exceed 1.5c next year, but it’s not far away, by the mid 2030’s, says someone.

It seems to me that this sort of stuff is anti-productive, and just gives fodder to the climate change action denialists, of whom there are still plenty around.

What is the best way to present scientific data to maximise action on reducing GHG emissions?

Can we assume all these disasters and strange weather patterns, etc in recent years are due to climate change or at least made more extreme because of them.
Anyway the point is if they are all due to a degree or so of average temperature change imagine what happens if its higher than this.

Anyway the original question, less dry data and presented in a manner more people would read even if its superficial, like meme’s for example.
Or cold hard facts like (exaggerated ? that may play into deniers hands as lies) like your coffee is likely to become a rich persons beverages as crops yields will drastically reduce.

The Rev Dodgson said:

There has been a lot of stuff recently about reaching +1.5degrees next year, including a feature article in last week’s New Scientist headed:

Welcome to Life After 1.5c

There then follow four paragraphs on how all-hell will break loose, and how the world is breaching commitments made in a “binding treaty”.

Then it says, OK, the average temperature increase won’t exceed 1.5c next year, but it’s not far away, by the mid 2030’s, says someone.

It seems to me that this sort of stuff is anti-productive, and just gives fodder to the climate change action denialists, of whom there are still plenty around.

What is the best way to present scientific data to maximise action on reducing GHG emissions?

Click bait, Mr Dodgy Rev. You clicked on it. See? It works!!! It’s all about the clicks. Clickety clickety clickety clickety and not much clack.

It’s going to be like setting a log on fire.
The temp will start increasing slowly but once it gets going it will increase really fast.
I think they call it logarithmic.

Woodie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There has been a lot of stuff recently about reaching +1.5degrees next year, including a feature article in last week’s New Scientist headed:

Welcome to Life After 1.5c

There then follow four paragraphs on how all-hell will break loose, and how the world is breaching commitments made in a “binding treaty”.

Then it says, OK, the average temperature increase won’t exceed 1.5c next year, but it’s not far away, by the mid 2030’s, says someone.

It seems to me that this sort of stuff is anti-productive, and just gives fodder to the climate change action denialists, of whom there are still plenty around.

What is the best way to present scientific data to maximise action on reducing GHG emissions?

Click bait, Mr Dodgy Rev. You clicked on it. See? It works!!! It’s all about the clicks. Clickety clickety clickety clickety and not much clack.

I did nothing of the sort.

I picked up my magazine printed on proper paper, and read the article without a single click.

But, OK, I suppose not everyone does that.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s going to be like setting a log on fire.
The temp will start increasing slowly but once it gets going it will increase really fast.
I think they call it logarithmic.

The only log that is logarithmic, Mr Man, is one that plays the guitar.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s going to be like setting a log on fire.
The temp will start increasing slowly but once it gets going it will increase really fast.
I think they call it logarithmic.

Had your second bowl of rice bubbles I see.

Minus 5.6 degrees in Canberra last night.